imported>Peter Schmitt |
|
| (6 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | | {{AccountNotLive}} |
| | |
| Relying on a single source for information would be dangerous.
| |
| There must not be a monopoly for an online encyclopedia.
| |
| It is crucial that there is competition.
| |
| * The Citizendium has the potential to be a competitor of WP.
| |
| | |
| But: CZ may not try to directly compete with WP.
| |
| WP was the first, it is the biggest, it the best known.
| |
| It has the most contributors (and the most users, too).
| |
| The chances to beat WP in Google hits is minimal.
| |
| Even after a very successfull campaign to recruit new Citizens,
| |
| * CZ will not be a match for WP measured by resources.
| |
| | |
| Thus CZ has to try to gain reputation (evolve a brand) and
| |
| to establish itself as a site where to go directly, by-passing search engines.
| |
| For this purpose, CZ must not imitate WP,
| |
| but has to be recognizably different from its competitors.
| |
| Consequently,
| |
| * CZ has to (mainly) strive for quality, not for quantity.
| |
| To hope for a fast growth -- as fast as WP -- is likely to be an illusion.
| |
| | |
| There is much to do.
| |
| <br>
| |
| All policies have to be reviewed.
| |
| Many suggestions and problems have been discussed
| |
| in the forum and on talk pages.
| |
| All of them have to be considered, many of them deserve to be realized.
| |
| <br> But:
| |
| There is TOO much to do!
| |
| <br>
| |
| We shall not be able to handle everything at once. Thus,
| |
| * when starting now to (re)form CZ it is important to choose priorities carefully and to be patient.
| |
| Else there is the danger that nothing will be accomplished.
| |
| | |
| In order to reach its ambitious goals, CZ will need the cooperation of all Citizens.
| |
| While it is the responsibility of the officials
| |
| (EC,MC,ME, and Ombudsman, who will have to closely cooperate)
| |
| to guarantee the reliability of all content and
| |
| that the fundamental principles are observed,
| |
| they will need the support of all Citizens.
| |
| * All officials will have to work in close contact with all interested Citizens.
| |
| | |
| We are lucky to finally have a Charter on that CZ can be built. However,
| |
| * the Charter needs some revisions.
| |
| | |
| For me the guiding principles are:
| |
| | |
| * CZ is an encyclopedia for the whole body of knowledge. (I am an inclusionist.)
| |
| While there are, of course, more important and less important topics,
| |
| it is up to the authors what they choose to contribute
| |
| as long as it is correct and reliable material presented in an adequate form.
| |
| : (Naturally, CZ is far away from the goal to include "everything" and will be so for a long time.)
| |
| | |
| Guidelines are necessary in order to provide a coherent structure
| |
| and to guarantee that CZ remains usable.
| |
| However, guidelines should also be kept to a minimum and
| |
| allow differences in style and the approach used.
| |
| | |
| The term "neutrality" is controversial, it is loaded with meaning such as
| |
| the WP interpretation.
| |
| * I prefer to say that CZ has to be honest and fair,
| |
| but must not shy away from a firm standpoint if justified by "expert judgement".
| |
| : (This, however, may not lead to totally exclude non-mainstream opinions.)
| |
| As for the much disputed topic of pseudoscience and "fringe":
| |
| Whether one likes them or not, they exist and are part of what is discussed
| |
| in the public.
| |
| Therefore, there is a place for them on CZ and they may (and finally should)
| |
| be covered, but -- of course! -- in an adequate form (and to an adequate extent).
| |
| Nonsense has to be called "nonsense", unproven claims have to be labelled as
| |
| "unproven", and unlikely or speculative theories have to be presented as such.
| |
| | |
| Major tasks for the EC will be
| |
| * to develop a system of classification for articles (subject classification),
| |
| * to find a practical mathod of quality control in general, as well as
| |
| * to reorganize, in particular, the approval process and the handling of approved articles
| |
| * to organize cooperation of Citizens (workgroups)
| |
| | |
| <onlyinclude>[[{{NAMESPACE}}:{{BASEPAGENAME}}/{{{1}}}|{{{2}}}]]</onlyinclude> | | <onlyinclude>[[{{NAMESPACE}}:{{BASEPAGENAME}}/{{{1}}}|{{{2}}}]]</onlyinclude> |
|
| |
|
The account of this former contributor was not re-activated after the server upgrade of March 2022.
[[User:Peter Schmitt/{{{1}}}|{{{2}}}]]
http://rsnr.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/59/3/285.full Cayley
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v20/n507/pdf/020275a0.pdf
nature Volume 20 Number 507 pp261-284
In this issue (17 July 1879)
* Book Reviews
* Letters to Editor
* News
* Correction
* News
Correction Notes- p275 doi:10.1038/020275a0 PDF
http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2756.msg22054.html#msg22054
http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2748.0.html
http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2764.msg22183.html#msg22183
http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1085.msg8866.html#msg8866
There are several popular books on (the history of) "zero"
which make interesting reading but have to be taken with care as can be seen from the reviews.
- Robert Kaplan, The Nothing That Is: A Natural History of Zero. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000.
- Critically reviewed by:
- Philip J. Davis, Embedding Zero in Exposition, Book Review. SIAM News (September 17, 2000) [siam.org]
- Ivor Grattan-Guinness, Much ado about some thing, Book Review. Nature 401, 645-646 (14 October 1999) (doi:10.1038/44273) [nature.com]
- Andrew Leahy, The Mathematical Association of America. [maa.org]
- Brian Blank, Book review. The College Mathematics Journal, Vol.32 No.2, March 2001, 155-160. See pp. 158-160 [pdf]
- Keith Devlin, Natural History, Dec, 1999. [bnet]
- John Derbyshire, The conquering zero. October 1999. [newcriterion.com]
- Richard Pinch, Much ado about Nothing. Magazine issue 2228 (04 March 2000) [newscientist.com]
- J. Kingston Pierce, All for Naught. [January Magazine]
- Charles Seife, Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea. Viking Penguin, New York, 2000.
- Critically reviewed by:
- Brian Blank, Book review. The College Mathematics Journal, Vol.32 No.2, March 2001, 155-160. See pp. 157-158 [pdf]
- Steven G. Krantz, What's So Special About Zero? Book Review, SIAM News (September 17, 2000). [siam.org (pdf)]
- Keith Devlin, Natural History, Dec, 1999. [bnet]
- John D. Barrow, The Book of Nothing. Pantheon: 2001.
- Critically reviewed by:
- John O'Connor, Nothing to it! Book review. Nature 410, 748-749 (12 April 2001) (doi:10.1038/35071152) [nature.com]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Martin Gardner, The Significance of ‘Nothing’, in: The Night is Large. (1996).
What is the origin of zero? How did we indicate nothingness before zero?
Scientific American (January 16, 2007), answer based on Kaplan's book (see below). [Scientific American]
Bill Casselman, All for Nought.
Feature column at [ams.org]
Gwalior in India The temple is dated to 876 A. D
What the Gwalior tablet shows is that by 876 A. D. our current place-value system with a base of 10 had become part of popular culture in at least one region of India.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%